Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning,
Speaker 3: and welcome to Counterpoints. Emily, how you doing good?
Speaker 4: Starting to disappoint everyone? We do not have Bro.
Speaker 3: Show today, No Bro show. That's all right, It's all
Speaker 3: good here still.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Sager did a great job holding down the counterpoints
Speaker 4: for it last week, so we are ready to dive
Speaker 4: into these about to.
Speaker 3: Switch seats because he sat here and I sat there
Speaker 3: and I liked it so much better.
Speaker 4: But I forgot, I forget that you liked the other side. Well,
Speaker 4: maybe someday you can colonize sager seat. Well, Sager did
Speaker 4: a great job holding down the fort. But we are
Speaker 4: within two weeks of the election, so we have quite
Speaker 4: a big show. Donald Trump is campaigning everyone where Barack
Speaker 4: Obama campaigned with eminem On behalf of Kamala Harris. Last night,
Speaker 4: a lot of people saying that he rapped the first
Speaker 4: verse of Los Yourself. It didn't really, he wasn't really
Speaker 4: rapping he was. It was a poetry, right, But I
Speaker 4: felt like sort of I had been like, what's the
Speaker 4: Remember when you used to get rick rolled? I felt
Speaker 4: like I had been rickrolled by people saying Obama was
Speaker 4: rapping Eminem.
Speaker 3: I read the Trump War rumor whoever tweeted it. All
Speaker 3: the Republicans were, I have no idea what that even was.
Speaker 3: You know what that was? Come on, yeah, everyone knew,
Speaker 3: you know what I was trying to do.
Speaker 4: So the campaign trail is chaotic as usual right now.
Speaker 4: So we're going to dive into some highlights from Trump's
Speaker 4: last twenty four hours. Basically, we're going to talk about
Speaker 4: how the announcement, huge announcement. He's going to do Joe
Speaker 4: Rogan's podcast. We're also then going to turn to the
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris campaign. We're going to talk about Elon Musk.
Speaker 4: We're going to bring all kinds of updates from the
Speaker 4: world big money basically playing the role that it's playing
Speaker 4: in this election. Then Ryan, we're heading over to.
Speaker 3: Number yes, we've got an exclusive poll from the Nebraska
Speaker 3: Senate race, which show we'll tease for you now shows
Speaker 3: Dan Osborne, who we had on the show about a
Speaker 3: month ago, up by two points over the Republican incumbent.
Speaker 3: This race could flip control of the Senate. Actually, I
Speaker 3: would say that Nebraska is the Senate race that will
Speaker 3: decide control of the Senate. Assuming Democrats lose Montana. We
Speaker 3: already know that they're going to lose West Virginia. Joe
Speaker 3: Manchin god rest iss all no longer with us.
Speaker 4: Well, it could also be an AOC style vibe shift
Speaker 4: for the Senate, so you know where the seat is
Speaker 4: scooped up by not a Democrat and an independent candidate right.
Speaker 3: An industrial mechanic union leader veteran who led a strike
Speaker 3: and got fired for it guest on the show potentially
Speaker 3: now could be a Senator. We'll see.
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right, so we will dive into that. I
Speaker 4: really hate to say this, but we have updates from McDonald's,
Speaker 4: which is suffering in the stock market and in the
Speaker 4: stomachs apparently of people around the country.
Speaker 3: So far, one person has died, an elderly person died
Speaker 3: from E coli infected quarter pounders. This, Yeah, the stock mark,
Speaker 3: the stock price plummeted, dozens of people sick and gross, disgusting, disgusting.
Speaker 4: Scager wanted us to talk about it. So here we
Speaker 4: are also do an update from Cuba. Ryan was able
Speaker 4: to get a fantastic on the ground report that we're
Speaker 4: really excited to play for everybody. The blackouts in Cuba
Speaker 4: are just unbelievable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Cuba went through its most serious blackout in its
Speaker 3: history post revolution. At Augustine. Reporter for drop site is
Speaker 3: on the ground in Havana, and we'll update us on that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and we're going to finish with another drop site
Speaker 4: report actually on the IDF fantastic report that drop.
Speaker 3: Site, actually incredible report that looks into that basically maps
Speaker 3: out an entire Israeli combat battalion, the seven to forty
Speaker 3: nine Battalion, tracing their entire path of destruction through Gaza
Speaker 3: starting shortly after October seventh up until today, exclusively relying
Speaker 3: on their own social media posts. So you'll want to
Speaker 3: stick around for that one.
Speaker 4: So let's start with Donald Trump's last twenty four hours
Speaker 4: or so on the campaign trail. He sat for an
Speaker 4: interview with Saudi State TV and talked about what he
Speaker 4: thinks has become a hostages and at least policy. Let's
Speaker 4: roll just a clip of that.
Speaker 5: You said you have to release these hostages before I
Speaker 5: reached the White House. So do you think what can
Speaker 5: be done?
Speaker 1: Well, I would have said they have to release them immediately.
Speaker 1: I think if I said it, they would have done it.
Speaker 1: I think the hostages would have been back home. But
Speaker 1: I think even early on, I think a lot of
Speaker 1: those hosages were dead. I think they were dead. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a very sad thing. It's not even believable when
Speaker 1: you think about it, but I think pretty early on
Speaker 1: there were a lot that were gone, and you know,
Speaker 1: just ad rest their souls to live that way and
Speaker 1: to you know, spend. And these were largely young people
Speaker 1: that were having a good time at a festival. Life
Speaker 1: was a bowl of cherries, right, and they did. It's
Speaker 1: a very sad thing. But you know, it's interesting. I
Speaker 1: don't know what's going to happen when they find out
Speaker 1: there are fewer than they thought, and it could be
Speaker 1: by a staggering number.
Speaker 5: What's about the destruction and the death of civilians? Do
Speaker 5: you think that tolerable price that Israel's doing in Gaza
Speaker 5: and in Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Now, oh, the destruction's terrebrale, the whole the whole thing
Speaker 1: is terrible. It should have again, it should have never
Speaker 1: happened if October seventh wouldn't happen, which it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: because Iran funds it, and Iran had no money. They
Speaker 1: had no money, They had absolutely no money. And I
Speaker 1: would have made a deal with them and they wouldn't
Speaker 1: have done October seventh, but because they have no respect
Speaker 1: for Biden, they did it.
Speaker 4: So and this continues Donald Trump's campaign trail pitch essentially
Speaker 4: that Ukraine and the war in Gaza never would have
Speaker 4: happened if he was president. This is genuinely the way
Speaker 4: that he handling these massive foreign policy discussions. And honestly,
Speaker 4: I think it's one of those moments of from Trump
Speaker 4: where it's like so absurd that it's almost brilliant because
Speaker 4: it's a you can't really rebut it like, what are
Speaker 4: you supposed to say? I have a time machine, and
Speaker 4: actually I can play out this counterfactual, but we actually
Speaker 4: know that a lot of times, like the strongman theory
Speaker 4: of history plays out at least on the micro level,
Speaker 4: you know, not necessarily macro, but on a micro level,
Speaker 4: and various conflicts based on how world leaders personally interact
Speaker 4: with other world leaders. So I don't think it's as
Speaker 4: ridiculous as a lot of the media is making it
Speaker 4: out to be. But it is his. I mean, for
Speaker 4: any voter, they would actually like to know more specifics,
Speaker 4: and I think, like, what are you going to do
Speaker 4: some sort of basic questions. Yeah, but you.
Speaker 3: Could as a voter, you could even grant him for
Speaker 3: the sake of discussion. Okay, let's say that that's true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's just going to negotiate right now, what right?
Speaker 3: Okay, you weren't president. It did happen. Now here's where
Speaker 3: we are, So now what are you gonna do?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 3: His his his point on the hostages is very Trumpian uh,
Speaker 3: and is also there's some truth to it. It's it's
Speaker 3: the kind it's it's devastating for a lot of those
Speaker 3: families to hear and kind of heartless because he doesn't
Speaker 3: have any specific information and he's not telling them anything specific.
Speaker 3: He's basically just telling them you should have less hope
Speaker 3: than you do have. But on the other hand, we
Speaker 3: do know that so many of the hostages who we
Speaker 3: thought were alive in Gaza actually died on October seventh.
Speaker 3: Like that that is a that is a fact, and
Speaker 3: it doesn't get that hasn't gotten talked about much, and
Speaker 3: for it's just a it's just a very trumpy and
Speaker 3: callous way to kind of inject himself into that, into
Speaker 3: that question. You know, he recently said, uh, that he
Speaker 3: that Bibi is holding that Biden is holding net Yahoo
Speaker 3: back and that in fact, he should do the opposite.
Speaker 3: And you have this remarkable situation We're gonna talk about
Speaker 3: this in a bit where he's now winning our of
Speaker 3: American voters, right while also saying that Biden has been
Speaker 3: too tough on net Yahoo. Yet he's smart enough that
Speaker 3: he's framing the race as around the Cheney's and that
Speaker 3: he's the peace candidate, right and the enough to stick
Speaker 3: to that because he's not right.
Speaker 4: But the Hair's campaign is playing right into his hands.
Speaker 4: I mean absolutely again, like this is Donald Trump is
Speaker 4: absurd in many different ways, but this is not. I mean,
Speaker 4: I think this is actually one of those moments where
Speaker 4: Trump is kind of outside the paradigm, the uniparty paradigm
Speaker 4: that absolutely chains other candidates to unpopular positions. And I'm
Speaker 4: not saying that it's like morally a pillar of like
Speaker 4: political moral genius, but it's actually politically pretty smart, like
Speaker 4: he's slippery.
Speaker 3: Although there's never a pace where the Unit Party was
Speaker 3: part of of the Chinese, like the Chinese were either
Speaker 3: popular among the trail that is really true, or popular
Speaker 3: among the Democrats. Really they never had bipartisan support.
Speaker 4: At the same time, that's a great point, although they
Speaker 4: have bipartisan support right now, just not with the.
Speaker 3: People, right, I mean, they've they've got Bill Crystal or whatever.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but well, and he may actually say he's formerly
Speaker 4: a Democrat right now, but the entire reason that they're
Speaker 4: rolling out the Chinese on the campaign trail is he
Speaker 4: says he's a feminist.
Speaker 3: By the way, or Bill Crestl I don't think.
Speaker 4: Brings up to do it, but it's because the Harris
Speaker 4: campaign thinks it'll win swing voters, which is sort of funny.
Speaker 4: And yeah, yeah, but well, speaking of that, actually this
Speaker 4: is we were just about to get to this sot
Speaker 4: of Frank Lunz, sort of famed DC polster, talking about
Speaker 4: how the Trump campaign could use NICKI Haley. Let's roll
Speaker 4: Frank lens.
Speaker 7: Here Bromp has said that Nicki Haley wants his nemesis
Speaker 7: in the primaries, could join him on the trail. She's
Speaker 7: done a robo call for him, She's recorded robo calls
Speaker 7: on his behalf. But if the Trump campaign deploys her,
Speaker 7: what kind of voters could that help with?
Speaker 4: And where do you think that they'll use her.
Speaker 8: It will help with younger women because Trump is doing
Speaker 8: so well among older men. It'll help in these swing states,
Speaker 8: and Nikki Haley brings interest, brings attention among independents, among
Speaker 8: swing voters. There aren't many left, but what is left
Speaker 8: they will listen to her, and it'll be a surprise
Speaker 8: because she has been so challenging of him, so negative
Speaker 8: towards him up to now. It's a very smart strategy,
Speaker 8: But in the end, it's not going to be the surrogates.
Speaker 8: It's going to be what they say and how they
Speaker 8: say it in the last forty eight hours that will
Speaker 8: determine these final votes. The key for Haley is absolutely turn.
Speaker 9: Out eighteen to twenty nine women. The key for Donald
Speaker 9: Trump is absolutely union votes, young African American men and Latinos.
Speaker 9: It's too close to Carl right, now, who does better
Speaker 9: with those groups is the one who gets selected.
Speaker 4: One part of that, right, I'm curious what you make
Speaker 4: of is him saying that the key for Nicky Haley
Speaker 4: would be eighteen to twenty nine year old women. I
Speaker 4: would think it would actually be an older demographic of women,
Speaker 4: slightly older women in their thirties and forties with kids
Speaker 4: who want a softer, kind of a softer face on
Speaker 4: trump Ism.
Speaker 3: To reassure that, I would assume he would agree with that.
Speaker 3: That wherever she can make in roads with women or
Speaker 3: swing voters in general, or people persuadable in general, that
Speaker 3: she would go for that. This is a problem of
Speaker 3: the Democrat's own making, though in some ways like they
Speaker 3: elevated Nicky Haley as this reasonable centrist, yes true, who
Speaker 3: should be listened to when it comes to her take
Speaker 3: on Donald Trump because they liked what she was saying
Speaker 3: about Donald Trump when she was running against him. Lowel Behald,
Speaker 3: you better be careful who you elevate if you don't
Speaker 3: think that they're actually in your camp. And so it's like,
Speaker 3: so now there will be this candidate, there's this candidate
Speaker 3: out there who see an n and MSNBC and all
Speaker 3: the kind of suburban Democrats have said is a credible
Speaker 3: voice when it comes to Trump going out and saying
Speaker 3: Trump is actually good.
Speaker 4: Right, that's such a good point. Oh, whoops, No, that's
Speaker 4: a great point. And this idea that you know what
Speaker 4: Franklin's was saying, there's like this race is way too
Speaker 4: close to call. So to your point, Ryan, any slice
Speaker 4: that you can appeal to easily enough, like you get
Speaker 4: any surrogate and you put them wherever you can, because
Speaker 4: it's just a game of numbers, like you're just trying
Speaker 4: to tip the scale in one direction. And even if
Speaker 4: it's you know basically what I'm saying, we don't think
Speaker 4: Nikki Haley or I don't think Nikki Haley has like
Speaker 4: some broad demographic appeal in the United States, but there
Speaker 4: probably is a slim enough demographic of people who are
Speaker 4: in the middle of the ven diagram where they take
Speaker 4: the mainstream media seriously and are sort of interested in
Speaker 4: Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, exactly. Not a huge great and Democrats created
Speaker 3: her as a reasonable critic. And the reason I say
Speaker 3: it's a foreseeable air her is that she is a
Speaker 3: complete maniac like her police Cheney esque and in many
Speaker 3: ways more insane than Trump's, Like she has never met
Speaker 3: a country that she doesn't think should be we should
Speaker 3: be at war with, or should be our proxy doing
Speaker 3: war for us. Like there are no other countries in
Speaker 3: the world utterly maniacal when it comes to foreign policy
Speaker 3: and militarism. And Democrats were willing to either over Let's
Speaker 3: be generous to them and say they're willing to overlook
Speaker 3: it because she was critical of Trump during a primary.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think they like it. It's the same
Speaker 4: people who are elevating.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, speaking of sort of breaking out of the uniparty paradigm,
Speaker 4: Donald Trump agreed to go on Joe Rogan's show Big
Speaker 4: News yesterday. He's going to sit down for an interview
Speaker 4: with Joe Rogan on Friday. I'm hoping the episode will
Speaker 4: air on Friday.
Speaker 3: That'll be your weekend plans.
Speaker 4: It is, can't wait. But Trump said which podcast was
Speaker 4: it on? He said like a month ago that he
Speaker 4: would think about doing Joe Rogan. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right.
Speaker 4: It was Lex Friedman, And it was part of this
Speaker 4: longer conversation that he was having with Lex Friedman about.
Speaker 3: What I'm not going to ask him. He has asked me,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to ask him.
Speaker 4: Yes, right, exactly why it's important to do new media,
Speaker 4: which is an argument that he's made a couple of
Speaker 4: times since, which is also pretty interesting. But he said
Speaker 4: basically like I don't know Joe Rogan. I don't you know.
Speaker 4: I've walked out into the ring with him. People think
Speaker 4: that makes us friends, but he's kind of cold towards
Speaker 4: Joe Rogan when he was having that conversation with Lex Friedman,
Speaker 4: and here he is, He's agreed to do the podcast.
Speaker 4: Really speaks to the power of Joe Rogan. And another
Speaker 4: credit words due smart move on behalf of the Trump campaign,
Speaker 4: because I mean, this is a massive audience and Trump
Speaker 4: is Trump. Trump doesn't have bad interviews. Trump only has
Speaker 4: Trump interviews. Like there is no good or bad.
Speaker 3: It is just Trump. And if we didn't already, we
Speaker 3: can put a three up on the screen. In some ways,
Speaker 3: Trump had to swallow some ego here, because it wasn't
Speaker 3: just that Trump had decided not to go on Joe
Speaker 3: Rogan's show. Joe Rogan for many years has been saying
Speaker 3: publicly that he was completely uninterested in having Trump on
Speaker 3: and that Trump is a buffoon, yep, who he refused
Speaker 3: to vote for. So Trump knows that, and it is
Speaker 3: a testament to Rogan's power. He's that when he finally agreed, Okay, fine,
Speaker 3: I will have Trump on that. Trump agreed because Trump
Speaker 3: hates nothing more than people who make fun of him,
Speaker 3: belittle him, insult him, don't look up to him, don't
Speaker 3: respect him. So for Trump to say, all right, despite
Speaker 3: him saying all that, I Am still going to appear
Speaker 3: on his podcast shows you how important his campaign and
Speaker 3: he understands Rogan's kind of gettable voting base to be.
Speaker 3: And that's what Democrats have just or e lead. Democrats
Speaker 3: are just not understand about Rogan's demographic that some of
Speaker 3: them are right are they're locked in right wingers? Some yeah,
Speaker 3: But most of them, I would argue, are very much
Speaker 3: gettable there and they're they're open to hearing an argument.
Speaker 4: This is the thing that professional Washington struggles to understand
Speaker 4: is the sort of what they would view as confusing
Speaker 4: and incoherent political views of the average American. And it's
Speaker 4: not incoherent at all. It's just like the average American
Speaker 4: isn't a fixed ideological creature like most of professional Washington is,
Speaker 4: and That's what I think Joe Rogan understands. It's interesting
Speaker 4: because Rogan basically seem to be very exhausted by the
Speaker 4: pressures of interviewing candidates, because people would when you're talking
Speaker 4: to Bernie Sanders or Tulsa Gabbard, people would put Rogan
Speaker 4: in one box with the other and then they would
Speaker 4: start talking about him in the context of journalism and
Speaker 4: treating him like he's purporting to be some type of
Speaker 4: Walter Cronkite figure, which he's not. But he's also apparently
Speaker 4: reportedly in talks with the Harris camp. So if Kalin
Speaker 4: Harris said Joe Rogan, that would be an incredible disaster,
Speaker 4: because Joe Rogan has sort of like picked up the
Speaker 4: mantle from Howard Stern and is actually more Howard Stern
Speaker 4: asked than Howard Stern himself. As we talked about Kamala
Speaker 4: Harris's very very warm and friendly conversation with Howard Stern recently.
Speaker 4: I think for Harris, you.
Speaker 3: Know, Trump can mix, it'd be a disaster. Why she's so.
Speaker 4: Bad in unscripted situations.
Speaker 3: But maybe a three hour like she's she's bad in
Speaker 3: a one minute unscripted situation. You think it might be different,
Speaker 3: but in a three hour unscripted situation, you know, more
Speaker 3: of herself would come out possible.
Speaker 4: I mean when she did that on Breakfast Club, she
Speaker 4: got caught lying about smoking weed and listening to what
Speaker 4: Steep dogg or something.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, she said she used to smoke weed while
Speaker 3: listening to Gin and Juice or something that it was
Speaker 3: years before Jen and Juice ever came out. Yeah, right,
Speaker 3: but she won't. The reason I think she could do
Speaker 3: better is that I don't think she'll feel a need
Speaker 3: to pander to Rogan, whereas Breakfast Club is in full
Speaker 3: on pander mode.
Speaker 4: I feel like she would want to panderr on Rogan. No.
Speaker 3: I think because she's so kind of inculcated with the
Speaker 3: democratic idea that this person is an adversary, that she
Speaker 3: would go into it a little bit adversarial, trying to
Speaker 3: be charming but understanding it to be an adversarial situation interesting,
Speaker 3: and so then wouldn't be pandering. Who knows how she
Speaker 3: would try to pander to Rogan. It'd be funny to
Speaker 3: think about it. Yeah, maybe she'd try try out some
Speaker 3: like comedy, some stand up riffs. That'd be fun.
Speaker 4: I see what you're saying, and I think there's a
Speaker 4: nine zero chance it's right. But I think the chance
Speaker 4: is also small.
Speaker 3: Because what people don't under say, she's not dumb. No,
Speaker 3: she comes across as dumb sometimes because I mean, I
Speaker 3: don't think she's like she doesn't believe anything, and yet
Speaker 3: she's running for president. You imagine how hard that would
Speaker 3: that would be.
Speaker 4: Put your stuff in her shoes, put yoursels.
Speaker 3: She'd try to say, she's trying to tell you what
Speaker 3: she believes about things, but doesn't actually believe them. Like
Speaker 3: that's a hard act for She's been doing it for decades,
Speaker 3: you know, so have some sympathy for that. But she
Speaker 3: is the daughter of two brilliant people like you know, uh,
Speaker 3: you can look look up her parents like extraordinarily talented people,
Speaker 3: that her sister extraordinarily talented, like civil rights activist, and
Speaker 3: she herself very smart person. That the role she's in
Speaker 3: makes it difficult for her. So if you let her
Speaker 3: go for three hours, maybe she actually loosens up a
Speaker 3: little bit. But the problem is the questions are still
Speaker 3: about what do you believe about things? And if she
Speaker 3: does believe things, she doesn't have enough confidence in them
Speaker 3: to say them like she's what she says is what
Speaker 3: her advisers are saying is the thing that's going to
Speaker 3: get her elected. So she still could get tripped up
Speaker 3: by that. But Rogan isn't going to talk policy for
Speaker 3: three hours. Yeah, you would just talk about her upbringing,
Speaker 3: probably ask her lots of stories about bir Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, you and I both know the type of politician
Speaker 4: that is always in sort of acting mode and struggles
Speaker 4: to kind of get out of it. And a lot
Speaker 4: of politicians don't like Obama. Trump is a different animal entirely,
Speaker 4: But there are some politicians who.
Speaker 3: Was in it for so long it is him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but there are some politicians who actually, you know,
Speaker 4: can like unbutton the jacket, sit down and have a
Speaker 4: beer and they'll say more interesting things. But there are
Speaker 4: also those politicians that literally cannot get out of politician mode.
Speaker 4: It's impossible. And she strikes me as one of those.
Speaker 4: Just because you play the act for so long, you
Speaker 4: keep up the act for so long, you forget who
Speaker 4: you actually are. Kind Of that's my armchair psychology.
Speaker 3: But she could do what Elon Musk did on Joe
Speaker 3: Rogan just a little joint. So speaking of that appears
Speaker 3: to be what a lot of his canvas seamless.
Speaker 4: Transition, Ryan people don't. That's that's it right there, that's
Speaker 4: the art of transition.
Speaker 3: And so an audit, according to the Guardian, if you
Speaker 3: can put put up a four here of the America
Speaker 3: pack canvassers finds that one in four of them are
Speaker 3: stoned and skipping. Okay, I'm kidding about that part.
Speaker 4: That's your theory. It's not a bad theory.
Speaker 3: Although I'm sure a lot of them are stoned and
Speaker 3: hitting the doors. Some of them appear to be stoned
Speaker 3: and not hitting the doors. So of the people that
Speaker 3: they audited in what Nevada and Arizona, up to a
Speaker 3: quarter of them were were found to be suspicious. It's
Speaker 3: what in the army they call pencil whipping, like, instead
Speaker 3: of actually doing the task that you've been instructed to do,
Speaker 3: you just pull out your pencil on your clipboard and
Speaker 3: you check off the box that you did it. In
Speaker 3: this case, they're i'm sure checking a box on a tablet, which,
Speaker 3: as you can imagine, is a very tempting thing for
Speaker 3: somebody underpaid who doesn't do d GAF. Yeah, you just
Speaker 3: and of course you could tell the the box the
Speaker 3: little tablet can tell like it has a GPS. Yeah,
Speaker 3: if you just hit if you hit them all at
Speaker 3: the end of your shift. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, so the Guardian audited data from a group called
Speaker 4: Blitz Canvassing that is part of the America pac operation.
Speaker 4: America Pack was founded by Elon Musk, and it sounds
Speaker 4: like they contracted out to this group Blitz Blitz Canvassing
Speaker 4: and the Garden shows leaked data shows that twenty four
Speaker 4: percent of the door knocks in Arizona and twenty five
Speaker 4: percent of the door knocks in Nevada this week were
Speaker 4: flagged under its internal quote unusual survey logs, which is
Speaker 4: a metric used to determine fake donors. They use just
Speaker 4: one example where they say showed a canvasser who was
Speaker 4: marked by GPS as sitting at Aguayo's on the trail
Speaker 4: restaurant half a mile away from the doors, who was
Speaker 4: supposedly hitting Globe Arizona. Another canvasser was recorded making voters,
Speaker 4: marketing voters as quote not home two blocks away from
Speaker 4: that apartment. So this is actually kind of technical and
Speaker 4: I don't know all the details of how often this
Speaker 4: pretty and again is pretty technical and specific canvassing software.
Speaker 4: I don't know the details of how often this stuff
Speaker 4: ends up being off the mark GPS like that is
Speaker 4: being routed into software like this. It's possible that this
Speaker 4: is something campaigns deal with all the time. What is
Speaker 4: pretty telling the ryan is that someone leaked this to
Speaker 4: The Guardian from presumably it would have to be inside
Speaker 4: America Pack or from the canvassing group, which tells you
Speaker 4: that there's a lot of internal upset, likely over whether
Speaker 4: or not they're doing a good job. And this was
Speaker 4: a huge problem for Donald Trump with outsourcing his youth
Speaker 4: operation to Turning Point USA. In Turningpoint USA's pack back
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty, there was a ton of hand ringing
Speaker 4: in the press by you know, a lot of anonymous
Speaker 4: source system on the record afterwards saying that that was
Speaker 4: basically a disaster and that it didn't go very well.
Speaker 4: And so now it seems as though there's potentially more
Speaker 4: tension over at America Pack, which we were just talking about.
Speaker 4: Why it's important to even go for these like slim
Speaker 4: dum graphics of people who might be persuaded by Nikki
Speaker 4: Haley knocking on the doors is pretty important in a
Speaker 4: place like Nevada in Arizona. That's like the most basic
Speaker 4: thing that you have to do, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, who knows if Elon Musk's canvassers are
Speaker 3: doing this more than the typical canvassor. You guess probably,
Speaker 3: but who knows, and we'll see. But it's funny and
Speaker 3: we can all have a good laugh.
Speaker 4: Now. Less funny is this Lever report.
Speaker 3: This is a fun one and this has been kicking
Speaker 3: around for a while. We can put up this last
Speaker 3: element of the A block here for a story from
Speaker 3: David Sirota's The Lever about this provision that's been in
Speaker 3: law for thirty five years. I've been thinking about this
Speaker 3: as Elon Musk has talked about taking a government official
Speaker 3: an official government position. There is a law on the
Speaker 3: books that is designed as a good government law which
Speaker 3: says you can and you can imagine how this is.
Speaker 3: This is kind of a fair way to approach things. Say, look,
Speaker 3: you know, you're super rich, you own a bunch of stocks.
Speaker 3: You are invited by the people you know, through their
Speaker 3: elected president, to serve the public, and as a result,
Speaker 3: you're now required to divest from some of your holdings
Speaker 3: so that you don't have criminal conflicts of interest. The
Speaker 3: divestment might cost you an enormous amount in capital gains
Speaker 3: taxes immediately and could practically bankrupt you depending on how
Speaker 3: the financial situation unfolds. And so therefore, we're going to
Speaker 3: allow you to defer all of those capital gains taxes,
Speaker 3: and we're going to we're gonna otherwise kind of give
Speaker 3: you a unique tax break that is not available to
Speaker 3: anybody else in the tax code or in finance, and
Speaker 3: as a thank you for your government service. And so
Speaker 3: if Elon Musk gets that tax break, we could end
Speaker 3: up it could end up being worth billions of dollars.
Speaker 3: Now Musk is I don't I don't think Elon Musk
Speaker 3: is doing all this for that tax break. Yeah, that's
Speaker 3: that would be crazy. However, it is billions of dollars
Speaker 3: that we're talking about, and I do think that Elon
Speaker 3: Musk is doing this for lots of reasons, many of
Speaker 3: which involve getting, you know, maintaining his position as the
Speaker 3: richest and most powerful person in the world.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's fascinating how people on the right are
Speaker 4: glossing over the truly insane amount of government subsidies that
Speaker 4: he's hoovered up in his positions as a defense contractor
Speaker 4: as an electric vehicle entrepreneur, and putting him in the
Speaker 4: government obviously ensures that he has more and more oversight
Speaker 4: of how some of those like massively valuable subsidies that
Speaker 4: boost his products in the marketplace will be delivered into
Speaker 4: the future. Now, obviously there are regulations, like we were
Speaker 4: just talking about that change you know what you can
Speaker 4: actually reap when you're in the position. So I doubt
Speaker 4: you know, I think he has a million different ways
Speaker 4: to get great tax breaks, to be honest, but it
Speaker 4: is I mean, the road is right. This is significant.
Speaker 3: It's significant. The whole the whole question is significant because
Speaker 3: it raises the broader question of what on earth he
Speaker 3: would do because legally he would be required to divest
Speaker 3: from say, SpaceX, yeah, anything that's getting it makes made Sure, Starlink, anything, Tesla,
Speaker 3: anything that's getting major government contract, which is everything he does.
Speaker 3: And of course he's not going to do that. And
Speaker 3: if he did do that, the tax break wouldn't be
Speaker 3: worth that much because the stock price collapsed from him
Speaker 3: no longer being the CEO of those operations would probably
Speaker 3: kind of outweigh the tax benefit that he would get
Speaker 3: from it. So therefore he probably ends up keeping them
Speaker 3: because who's going to tell him not to? Donald Trump, right,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump Attorney General. No way, So he ends up
Speaker 3: he probably ends up unloading things that he had been
Speaker 3: holding on to, and now he can get this tax break,
Speaker 3: but aren't consequential to his two hundred fifty billion dollars
Speaker 3: kind of enterprise.
Speaker 4: It's sort of inconceivable how it would work financially to
Speaker 4: put him in government. I mean, it's almost impossible to
Speaker 4: figure out what that would look like and how it
Speaker 4: would be done ethically, even if you're like doing it
Speaker 4: in the most charitable possible ethically.
Speaker 3: Yeah, people in the seventies conceptualizing this blow their minds.
Speaker 3: We have a piece that we published Sunday over at
Speaker 3: Dropsight that Emily actually gave us the right wing sensitivity
Speaker 3: read for about it's so good Elon Musk and he
Speaker 3: had just recently incorporated United States of America Inc. He
Speaker 3: calls his pack America Pack, and it's a look at
Speaker 3: what on earth Elon Musk might be up to.
Speaker 4: It's a good read. I think it's really important. I
Speaker 4: wish there were people on the right who were doing
Speaker 4: similar reporting. We're going to on the topic of Elon,
Speaker 4: but actually move over to the Harrish campaign, because Tim
Speaker 4: Walls went after Elon Musk at a rally. So let's
Speaker 4: roll this clip of Tim Walls going after Elon.
Speaker 10: Elon's on that stage, jumping around, skipping like a dipshit
Speaker 10: on these stuns. You know it, Think about it. Think
Speaker 10: about that that guy is literally the richest man in
Speaker 10: the world spending millions of dollars to help Donald Trump
Speaker 10: by an election. Now, look, they're saying the quiet parts
Speaker 10: out loud now because Donald Trump has already promised that
Speaker 10: he would put Elon in charge of government regulations that
Speaker 10: oversee the businesses that Elon run. That's a hell of
Speaker 10: a bye. He could spend billions to make more than
Speaker 10: ten billion on the back end. So, in other words,
Speaker 10: Donald Trump, in front of the eyes the American public,
Speaker 10: is promising corruption. There's something not just nuts but cruel
Speaker 10: about a billionaire using people's livelihood as a political prop
Speaker 10: his agenda, let's big corporations not pay people for overtime
Speaker 10: and diminishes those very workers that he was costplaying as.
Speaker 4: Okay, So that was Tim Walls at a rally in Madison, Wisconsin.
Speaker 4: Random curious what you make actually of Democrats turning Elon
Speaker 4: Musk into a negative or trying to turn Elon Musk
Speaker 4: into a negative from a kind of populist line against
Speaker 4: the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign sees Musk largely as
Speaker 4: an asset, which is fascinating again in this broader conversation
Speaker 4: about what actually is populism on the right and what
Speaker 4: populism is on the left. This is a billionaire who's
Speaker 4: very close He's a billionaire defense contractor, very close to
Speaker 4: all of these foreign leaders right, very much tethered or
Speaker 4: very much entangled with the US government campaign on behalf
Speaker 4: of Donald Trump, who you know, it just is so
Speaker 4: different than at least Donald Trump purports to be so
Speaker 4: different than the Union Party or the Beltwegh or the swamp.
Speaker 4: And yet Elon Musk has been kind of entangled in
Speaker 4: the swamp for a very long time. Democrats are sending
Speaker 4: out Dick Cheney or I'm sorry, Liz Cheney, saying nice
Speaker 4: things about Dick Cheney and then going after Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: Elon Musk does have the biography of somebody who people hate,
Speaker 3: a you know, a billionaire defense contractor, you know, living
Speaker 3: off the government doll while preaching libertarian free market values. However,
Speaker 3: you have to acknowledge that Elon Musk is a nique
Speaker 3: figure like he he doesn't that that's the beginning of
Speaker 3: the description of Elon Musk, but it's not the end
Speaker 3: of it. And up until fairly recently, his overall popularity
Speaker 3: among Democrats, Independence and Republicans was through the roof people
Speaker 3: really loved him. In fact, liberals were the ones who
Speaker 3: were buying all of his solar panels and his and
Speaker 3: his testless that like it. But as he has become
Speaker 3: this right wing partisan figure, his numbers, particularly among Democrats,
Speaker 3: have plummeted, and he's now under fifty percent when it
Speaker 3: comes you know, they'll do polls that say do you
Speaker 3: have a positive or negative view of Elon Musk, and
Speaker 3: he's now under fifty percent. He used to be way
Speaker 3: above it. In a polarized world where you are a
Speaker 3: partisan warrior, that's just necessarily going to be the case.
Speaker 3: And so I think Walls is certainly you know, he's
Speaker 3: prett reaching to an audience there that is already primed
Speaker 3: to hate him, just because he's so strongly supportive of
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. I don't necessarily think. I think Elon Musk
Speaker 3: is trying to buy the election. Is Land's hard because
Speaker 3: he's spending He already puts seventy five million dollars into
Speaker 3: an America pack, right. That's that's a billionaire trying to
Speaker 3: buy the election. The thing where he's doing a goofy
Speaker 3: lottery where he pays people who sign his petition one
Speaker 3: hundred bucks or forty seven dollars a million dollars and
Speaker 3: then a million dollars day to one random person, I
Speaker 3: think that lands less hard, even though it's crime. You
Speaker 3: I'm telling you.
Speaker 4: That if George Soros did that in Pennsylvania, the reactions
Speaker 4: on the right would be through the.
Speaker 3: Route you very quite literally, specifically explicitly cannot do that.
Speaker 3: It's against the law. But also this is America, and
Speaker 3: people are like that should be fine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well yeah, of course, but yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 4: think I don't think actually there's anything wrong political with
Speaker 4: Tim Walls making this line, because I think this is
Speaker 4: very much the mood of the country right now. Is
Speaker 4: it's much closer to saying that guy is literally the
Speaker 4: richest man in the world spending millions of dollars to
Speaker 4: help Donald Trump by an election. That's the Walls quote.
Speaker 4: I think most Americans would more Americans would sympathize with
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean they would dislike Elon Musk. I just
Speaker 4: think that's a smart case to make. Whether it's you're
Speaker 4: making the case against the billionaires that are back in
Speaker 4: the Harris campaign or the billionaires backing the Trump campaign.
Speaker 3: It's kind of the mood, right, yeah, exactly, speaking of
Speaker 3: billionaires with huge egos who may or may not be
Speaker 3: helpful to the candidate that they're ostensibly trying to support.
Speaker 3: Mark Cuban running around the country underminding Kamala Harris with voters.
Speaker 3: He thinks he's to lift her up with Wall Street.
Speaker 4: There's an argument this is very effective.
Speaker 3: I mean what expect tax rate?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, but effective also for convincing she has to
Speaker 4: win New York, convincing his peers, well yeah, convincing his
Speaker 4: peers that it's okay to donate to her.
Speaker 3: Who gives a rip? If she has a billion dollars,
Speaker 3: she's going to finish the campaign with money in the bank.
Speaker 4: Well let's yeah, let's take a listen to this, SANBC
Speaker 4: st We'll play this. This is B three.
Speaker 11: I said, why are you letting Mark Cuban be out
Speaker 11: here being the face of this, Why aren't you saying
Speaker 11: it yourself when it is something that matters to so
Speaker 11: many people, because.
Speaker 4: They don't want to alien other voters.
Speaker 11: That's the big that's a big, of course, the big
Speaker 11: thing out there. And when I said this matters to
Speaker 11: so many people, someone told me yesterday they would tell
Speaker 11: you you're crazy if you said it's the campaign that
Speaker 11: this matters. The defense is that this isn't something they
Speaker 11: think is really going to be a moving issue in
Speaker 11: the last two weeks of the campaign, so they.
Speaker 4: Don't want touch it.
Speaker 11: They don't want to alienate, but that they don't want.
Speaker 7: To alienate the base, but they also don't want to
Speaker 7: alienate their big donors.
Speaker 11: That's the issue they run exactly, and I guess with
Speaker 11: two weeks left, they'd rather just like Cuban talk about it,
Speaker 11: even when Trump's going on the attack. They say, we
Speaker 11: don't want to make it more of a thing by
Speaker 11: having Harris herself come out and say it. But I
Speaker 11: agree with you. Especially reporting on this campaign, trying to
Speaker 11: get concrete details out of them, it's been really difficult.
Speaker 3: So the substance of the dispute here is that the
Speaker 3: Harris campaign had said it supported some type of a
Speaker 3: wealth tax on billionaires. Mark Cuban went out and said,
Speaker 3: don't worry about that. She's not actually going to do that.
Speaker 3: Trust me. He publicly said that, yeah, as in a
Speaker 3: and he is. That's he's not just a friend of hers.
Speaker 3: He's not just a guy. He's what they call in
Speaker 3: campaign world, an official surrogate. In other words, what he
Speaker 3: says can be tied to the campaign.
Speaker 4: His media appearances are presumably being if you're a surrogate,
Speaker 4: that means you're presumably your media appearances are being coordinated
Speaker 4: by the camp.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: The difference is that he's a billionaire, and so he
Speaker 3: does what he wants, and that's the problem with having
Speaker 3: a billionaire surrogate and so. But he has also said,
Speaker 3: when asked about Lena Kahan and Gary genslearn whether or
Speaker 3: not Kamala Harris, you know, supports what they've been up to.
Speaker 3: He has said, she has told me to go out
Speaker 3: and say that she does not support. He calls it
Speaker 3: regulation by litigation, which is also otherwise known as law enforcement,
Speaker 3: otherwise known as when these companies break the law, you
Speaker 3: take them the court or you charge them criminally. And
Speaker 3: he's out there saying that she doesn't support that. He's
Speaker 3: been part of the campaign to get rid of Lena
Speaker 3: Coot and is a storygate on the campaign out there
Speaker 3: like undermining.
Speaker 4: Her, right, And I mean he's very transparent at least
Speaker 4: about his thought processes on X. Not dissimilar to Trump.
Speaker 4: It must be a billionaire thing, and truly I think
Speaker 4: it is a billionaire thing.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: When you have that much power, you feel comfortable like
Speaker 4: inviting people into your thought process because you're super confident,
Speaker 4: your ego is pretty rock solid. So it doesn't strike
Speaker 4: you as something that could be damaging to the campaign
Speaker 4: because your Mark Fan Cuban or you're Donald Trump, like,
Speaker 4: it just doesn't strike you as something that can be
Speaker 4: a vulnerability.
Speaker 3: A top Biden economic advisor, Brian Diese, who all of
Speaker 3: these top advisors have hung around and are advising Kamala Arris.
Speaker 3: It was reported recently that he is a supporter of
Speaker 3: Lena Khan, Gary Gensler, this kind of network, this network
Speaker 3: of kind of populist financial regulators, and that was read
Speaker 3: on Waltreet as, oh wait, maybe maybe we're actually being
Speaker 3: strung along here and that the anchor's point was the
Speaker 3: right one, that she actually doesn't have the political will
Speaker 3: to get rid of Lena Kahan, but there's no reason
Speaker 3: for her to alienate all of her donors at this moment.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, maybe she does have the will
Speaker 3: to do it.
Speaker 4: So Jamie Diamond is also this was just the last
Speaker 4: twenty four hours in New York Times, Is reported basically
Speaker 4: that Jamie Diamond and Bill Gates are quietly lending their
Speaker 4: support to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: I think James Dates a bunch of money too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Jamie Diamond's been a little bit less quiet
Speaker 4: about it. He's actually said he would consider a role
Speaker 4: in the administration. So another kind of Musk esque type
Speaker 4: person thinking about, hey, maybe I could be Treasury secretary.
Speaker 4: Axio says he would likely, He says he considered role
Speaker 4: in her administration. Quote likely Treasury secretary. Treasury secretary, which yes,
Speaker 4: you can easily. I mean Trump brought in like half
Speaker 4: of Goldman's sacks.
Speaker 3: From the suite. It's a very Clintonian vision. And we're
Speaker 3: going to find out if Biden's four years of really
Speaker 3: breaking from neoliberalism when it came to their economic policy
Speaker 3: was just an aberration, yeah, or if and and that
Speaker 3: Kama is going to try to take them right back
Speaker 3: under the Clintonian glide path. But it is very disturbing
Speaker 3: from a left wing perspective to see people like Jamie
Speaker 3: Diamond or Liz Cheney or Dick Cheney seeing the Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris campaign and saying, Oh, that looks nice. I'm going
Speaker 3: to join that.
Speaker 4: Right and it signals that they think they have a
Speaker 4: sort of influenced, significant influence they do. Speaking of which,
Speaker 4: while Tim Walls is talking about the world's richards man
Speaker 4: going in on the Trump campaign, I just want to
Speaker 4: pull up this article from the Washington Examiner Gab Kaminski,
Speaker 4: who we've talked to before. He's a great young reporter.
Speaker 4: He wrote a story called Meet Kamala Harris's Influential Mega Donors,
Speaker 4: outlining Reid Hoffman's influence, Michael Bloomberg's influence, people like Dustin Moskovitz,
Speaker 4: you can go down, George and Alex Soros, James and
Speaker 4: Catherine Murdock. It's a really interesting story. Jeffrey Katzenberg. Of course,
Speaker 4: because the sad read of Tim Waltz going after Elon Musk,
Speaker 4: that sort of populace vein is that neither party and
Speaker 4: our viewers and listeners obviously know this has any claim
Speaker 4: to be against big money in politics. There's just literally no.
Speaker 3: True that Aras campaign has been open arms to these folks. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then finally to cap off both of these segments,
Speaker 3: just utterly hilarious, delightful Donald Trump clip at his rally
Speaker 3: yesterday talking about Arabs and Muslims. And watch as you're
Speaker 3: watching this clip, I think, tell me if you tell me,
Speaker 3: if you agree afterwards and you notice something he's there's
Speaker 3: a message that he is being told is going to work,
Speaker 3: and he's and he's talked to he had he's had
Speaker 3: calls with a bunch of Arab American mayors who have
Speaker 3: joined his campaign or endorsing him. So he's heard directly
Speaker 3: from them. He knows the messages uh that work with
Speaker 3: with them and with the audience, which is you know
Speaker 3: that you know Biden and Harris are killing their family
Speaker 3: members in Lebanon and in Palestine. Uh and they're a
Speaker 3: complete failure when it comes to their militarism.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 3: So he understands that that's the message and that he
Speaker 3: if he presents himself as the Canadate piece who's going
Speaker 3: to put an end to this that works for him.
Speaker 3: What he really wants to say is that Liz Cheney
Speaker 3: is an adult and a moron. And so as you watch
Speaker 3: this clip, there's this gravitational pull of what Trump wants
Speaker 3: to say that keeps pulling him back into trashing Liz
Speaker 3: Cheney for being a moron.
Speaker 6: Why would Muslim support Lion Kamala Harris when she embraces
Speaker 6: Muslim hating and very dumb person Liz Chack dumb person who,
Speaker 6: by the way, lost for Congress in the biggest margin
Speaker 6: in the history of politics. She lost by almost forty points.
Speaker 6: The reason she has that honor is that most people,
Speaker 6: most people wouldn't have stayed in a congressperson that's in
Speaker 6: that position normally retires before the election, which would have
Speaker 6: been a good idea for her to do. But Liz
Speaker 6: Chaney's a total loser. But her father brought years of
Speaker 6: war and death to the Middle East. He killed many Arabs,
Speaker 6: many many Arabs and Muslims. And now Lion Kamala has
Speaker 6: embraced Liz Cheney. She embraced her, And why would a
Speaker 6: Muslim or why would an Arab want to vote for
Speaker 6: somebody that has Liz Cheney as her hero. Liz Cheney
Speaker 6: is a failed, totally failed politician. Again, she set the
Speaker 6: worst record. I think it's a terrible mistake that she's met.
Speaker 6: I think it's a great insult to Muslims all over
Speaker 6: the world. And I think that she's going to do
Speaker 6: very bad in Michigan. I really do. I think she's
Speaker 6: going to.
Speaker 3: Do very badly.
Speaker 6: To do that was a bad thing, and I was
Speaker 6: very surprised to see it.
Speaker 11: Ran.
Speaker 4: I actually want to put some numbers on this because
Speaker 4: Matt carp revealed some results from the Center for Working
Speaker 4: Class Politics that are somewhat relevant here. He said, we
Speaker 4: surveyed this was yesterday one thousand Pennsylvania registered voters and
Speaker 4: found that calling Trump a threat to democracy is Kamala
Speaker 4: Harris's least effective message with all voters, but also especially
Speaker 4: with working class voters. And it's that tension. It's the
Speaker 4: balance between needing to appeal to as many possible demographics
Speaker 4: while also not suppressing the vote or turning off voters
Speaker 4: in the other slices of the pie that you need
Speaker 4: in order to put the math together for the electoral college.
Speaker 4: So if by using Liz Cheney and hammering this democracy, democracy,
Speaker 4: democracy message over and over again, which gets picked up
Speaker 4: by NBC and all these places that people actually watch
Speaker 4: nightly news. Whatever are you turning off voters that you
Speaker 4: might otherwise have. I don't know. I mean, that's a
Speaker 4: pretty difficult question for the Harris campaign.
Speaker 3: Well, it's certainly turning off Arab American voters. The new
Speaker 3: poll out has Trump up forty five forty three with
Speaker 3: Arab Americans, which replicates an earlier poll from the Arab
Speaker 3: American Institute which found him up forty two to forty
Speaker 3: one among Arab Americans. You don't have to have that
Speaker 3: long of a memory to remember what Dick Cheney did,
Speaker 3: what the Bush administration did to the Mid East. Yeah,
Speaker 3: like that's and in the com if you are, if
Speaker 3: you understand and remember that, and you are viewing what's
Speaker 3: happening now with Gaza and with Lebanon and soon with
Speaker 3: Iran through that prism, it just makes you that much
Speaker 3: less sympathetic to the administration's position and that much more
Speaker 3: certain that they actually hate you and are okay with
Speaker 3: you and your family being being slaughtered and cut to pieces.
Speaker 4: We've one more stot. This was Kamala Harris on Hallie
Speaker 4: Jackson's show NBC News yesterday. Let's roll this one. It's
Speaker 4: going to be B two.
Speaker 13: We are sitting here two weeks away from election night.
Speaker 13: Last election, the former president came out on election night
Speaker 13: and declared victory before all the votes were counted. What
Speaker 13: is your plan if he does that again in two weeks?
Speaker 4: Well, let me say this.
Speaker 14: We've got two weeks to go, and I'm very much
Speaker 14: grounded in the present in terms of the task at hand,
Speaker 14: and we will deal with election night and the days
Speaker 14: after as they come, and we have the resources and
Speaker 14: the expertise and the focus on that as well.
Speaker 13: So my team is ready to go. Is that what
Speaker 13: you're saying? Are you thinking about that as a possibility?
Speaker 14: Of course, this is a person, Donald Trump, who tried
Speaker 14: to undo the free and fair election, who still denies
Speaker 14: the will of the people, who incited a violent mob
Speaker 14: to attack the United States capital, and one hundred and
Speaker 14: forty law enforcement officers were.
Speaker 4: Attacked, some who are were killed. This is a serious matter.
Speaker 14: The American people are at this point, two weeks out,
Speaker 14: being presented with a very very serious decision.
Speaker 3: I do think what most people are rooting for is
Speaker 3: that whoever wins wins convincingly.
Speaker 4: You No, that's the note, Like if people could vote
Speaker 4: just for that right, not even for a candidate, but
Speaker 4: just forly clarity.
Speaker 3: Like somebody please win this in a comfortable enough fashion.
Speaker 3: Even though Biden won by what seven million votes, we
Speaker 3: knew it was raised within in three states that decided
Speaker 3: the outcome.
Speaker 4: We knew what was likely to happen by midnight an
Speaker 4: election day, but we just didn't have certainty really until
Speaker 4: I don't know, five plus days after.
Speaker 3: Well, the other problem if you remember election night, it
Speaker 3: was like three am when the Wisconsin votes finally came in,
Speaker 3: which you knew was going to happen. Like, if you
Speaker 3: were following it, that was not surprising, But if you
Speaker 3: weren't following it, you're like, wait a minute, three am,
Speaker 3: they get all the boats and oh my god lost
Speaker 3: it sounds like fraud.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it felt like a car crash that you were
Speaker 4: watching in slow motion play out. So yeah, that's I guess.
Speaker 4: Hope for more clarity on election night, but I don't
Speaker 4: think that we are going to get it. One of
Speaker 4: the most important races to watch is the Nebraska Senate
Speaker 4: competition between deb Fisher and Dan Osborne. Dan Osborne was
Speaker 4: a guest on this show really before anybody was paying
Speaker 4: attention to him, except for, of course Ryan Grimm, who
Speaker 4: had his thumb firmly on the pulse of Nebraska politics. Ryan,
Speaker 4: you have a new report out and drop site, and
Speaker 4: some of it is exclusive that we're going to share
Speaker 4: right here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we can add this in post story that went
Speaker 3: up on drop Site News this morning. A new poll
Speaker 3: has has Dan Osborne up was a forty eight forty
Speaker 3: six I believe. So this is the at least the
Speaker 3: third recent poll that has found Dan Osborne, the kind
Speaker 3: of populist independent Nebraska up over deb Fisher. A previous
Speaker 3: one had found him all the way at fifty percent.
Speaker 3: So over the last several weeks, things have definitely been
Speaker 3: pushing in his direction. So here's why this race matters
Speaker 3: so much. Democrats ended up with Osborne running as an
Speaker 3: independent and gaining a lot of steam as an independent
Speaker 3: and refusing their endorsement. They ended up not even nominating
Speaker 3: a candidate. They said, forget it. We're sick of getting
Speaker 3: wiped out by twenty points every time anyway, so let's
Speaker 3: just see what happens with Osborne. Deb Fisher completely slept
Speaker 3: on this race. She has woken up over the last
Speaker 3: couple of weeks as the polls have shown her behind him.
Speaker 4: The NRSC completely slept on this race.
Speaker 3: They s Republicans.
Speaker 4: That's a National Republican centatorial committee.
Speaker 3: They looked, they looked at the race, and they said
Speaker 3: that the math just isn't possible for anybody other than
Speaker 3: a Republican to win this race.
Speaker 4: That's therapy plus twenty state.
Speaker 3: But Osborne has a biography that a campaign consultant would
Speaker 3: dream of. He started working in the Omaha Kellogg's plant
Speaker 3: as an industrial mechanic in two thousand and four, and
Speaker 3: then in twenty twenty one, when Kellogg tried to shut
Speaker 3: the plant down and tried to cut their pay, he
Speaker 3: led a strike that kind of captivated the state's attention,
Speaker 3: and they won that strike and got a strong contract,
Speaker 3: such a strong contract that they later maneuvered to get
Speaker 3: rid of him. His best revenge running for Senate. Then,
Speaker 3: I also served in the Navy, the National Guard, so
Speaker 3: doesn't have a college degree, just supported his family with
Speaker 3: the union job, which was the kind of twentieth century
Speaker 3: American dream. He also is like many in Nebraska, personally
Speaker 3: culturally conservative but politically more libertarian.
Speaker 4: All right, He told us he was personally pro life,
Speaker 4: but that he is.
Speaker 3: Would we can roll some of that here from our
Speaker 3: interview last time that he joined us on the program,
Speaker 3: We played us here if there was a bill that
Speaker 3: came to the Senate floor that would codify Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 3: would you vote to support that? And how big an
Speaker 3: issue are abortion rights in the Nebraska Senate races fairly
Speaker 3: conservative state, but then again abortion rights traumped in nearby Kansas. Correct,
Speaker 3: it did.
Speaker 15: And it is also about initiative in Nebraska, as is
Speaker 15: the legalization of medical cannabis is going to be on
Speaker 15: the ballot as well. And you know, I always divert
Speaker 15: back to the Constitution of the United States and the
Speaker 15: founding fathers and how they envisioned the country. And they
Speaker 15: envisioned the federal government take care of the big stuff,
Speaker 15: the economy, the border, foreign affairs, things like that. And
Speaker 15: I don't think the United States government should be meddling
Speaker 15: in our personal affairs, whether that's at the doctor's office
Speaker 15: or our bedrooms.
Speaker 3: I truly believe that, And so you know, I would
Speaker 3: I codify Roe v.
Speaker 16: Wade you know that goes that boils down to also
Speaker 16: the federal government should be taking care of our individual liberties,
Speaker 16: right the Second Amendment, things like that, And so I
Speaker 16: believe that does fall under the category of an individual liberty.
Speaker 16: Look in my own personal life, I'm on a percent
Speaker 16: pro life. I would never advocate for anyone that I
Speaker 16: know or love to have that procedure. But if I
Speaker 16: also know that I'm a male and I don't have
Speaker 16: a womban, I would never advocate for women to have
Speaker 16: that choice. And I know pregnancy is a very difficult
Speaker 16: thing and that it does need to be available for
Speaker 16: women who need that procedure because it could be life threatening.
Speaker 4: So you can tell that he's not a professional politician
Speaker 4: from all of them, right, which is in some ways endearing.
Speaker 4: I might disagree with what he said in the answer,
Speaker 4: but I think a lot of people I actually think Donald.
Speaker 3: Probably what he actually thinks, which is a shocking thing
Speaker 3: for a politician.
Speaker 4: I think Donald Trump would watch that and think he's
Speaker 4: a fairly competitive.
Speaker 3: FANDID Yeah, if Trump is bio, if Trump has a
Speaker 3: heart of hearts, and he sat down with deb Fisher
Speaker 3: and sat down with Dan Osborne, there's no question who
Speaker 3: he's endorsing there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, But he doesn't have
Speaker 3: a heart of hearts. He's the leader of the Publican Party,
Speaker 3: so he's he cut an ad for deb Fisher from
Speaker 3: his private plane where he's saying Dan Osborne is a
Speaker 3: Democrat in disguise. Vote for deb Fisher and that's the
Speaker 3: message that Republicans are hoping is going to break through. Right,
Speaker 3: how do you think it will?
Speaker 4: I mean, so there's something to what we're hearing from
Speaker 4: people inside GP circles, which is that this race is
Speaker 4: in a he might be doing well, he might come close,
Speaker 4: but at the end of the day, Nebraska is a
Speaker 4: Trump plus twenty states. So you described this before we
Speaker 4: went to air. There's a gravity there. There's a momentum
Speaker 4: for Republicans that is hard for literally anybody to overcome.
Speaker 4: So I think there's something to that for sure. Osborne, though,
Speaker 4: is not coded in a way for you know, the
Speaker 4: average voter that's going to make him really easily pinned
Speaker 4: to the far left and even the kind of squishy
Speaker 4: center Democratic Party that doesn't have a great brand in Nebraska.
Speaker 4: I mean, he's coded in a way that you would
Speaker 4: think the guy is a Republican. You think he was
Speaker 4: kind of maga, so don't. I think there's something too
Speaker 4: that I think it's powerful. But basically, we reached out
Speaker 4: to the NRSC for comment, don't have a comment from them.
Speaker 4: One thing I heard from a Republican strategist about the
Speaker 4: race is their sense is that Osborne is tapped out
Speaker 4: and has hit a ceiling. And so it's two weeks
Speaker 4: before election day, and that's absolutely something that happens. Someone
Speaker 4: gets a sturge of momentum, a bunch of money pours
Speaker 4: into the they start polling very well. In fact, you
Speaker 4: could argue this happened with Kamala Harris and peaks too early,
Speaker 4: so it's not impossible that's what happened. But these poles,
Speaker 4: I mean where you have, so his internal as you
Speaker 4: reported at drop site, it has him up by two points.
Speaker 4: This is the recent poll from deb Fisher. This was
Speaker 4: from October twelfth to fifteenth. It has her up by
Speaker 4: seven points. It has Osbourne at forty four percent. But
Speaker 4: his poll from October ninth to twelfth had him at
Speaker 4: fifty percent as you mentioned, and had Fisher at the
Speaker 4: reverse down at forty four percent. So that's plus six
Speaker 4: for him. There was an Independent Center. They sponsored a
Speaker 4: poll that was at the end of September that had
Speaker 4: Osborne up five so it wasn't a poll from either
Speaker 4: of the campaign. It had him forty seven to forty two.
Speaker 3: Although they have you know, it's the Independence Center. You
Speaker 3: just tell from the name that they have an interest
Speaker 3: in an independent doing well. Yes, of which we do too, because.
Speaker 17: It's yeah, we'd love to see this is dooptly broken
Speaker 17: by a populouce, a union mechanic who pushes the Democratic
Speaker 17: Party aside and then beats a corporate back Republican in Nebraska.
Speaker 3: But you're right that I think if the election were today,
Speaker 3: he's the favorite. But that is not today. Now the
Speaker 3: mail in voting is happening, which is good for him.
Speaker 3: Can he There'll be two weeks of millions of dollars
Speaker 3: spent calling him a Democrat. Being a Democrat Nebraska hurts.
Speaker 3: The poll shows right now that Donald Trump is winning
Speaker 3: ninety four percent of Republican voters and deb Fisher is
Speaker 3: winning eighty percent of Republican voters. That fourteen point gap
Speaker 3: is Osborne's path to victory. That fourteen percent of Republicans
Speaker 3: who are going to vote Trump Osborne puts Osborne in
Speaker 3: the Senate. She is going to try to She's going
Speaker 3: to spend every penny she has to close that gap.
Speaker 3: So if by election dayur or this, ninety six percent
Speaker 3: of Republicans vote for Trump and eighty nine percent vote
Speaker 3: for deb Fisher, then Deb Fisher wins if she can
Speaker 3: close that gap. There are so many Republicans in Nebraska
Speaker 3: that if she can close that just a little bit,
Speaker 3: she wins. Yeah. So for him to keep the jaws
Speaker 3: of that gap open require him to fight against this
Speaker 3: polarization and this gravitational pull towards party preference over people's
Speaker 3: actual respect and support for him.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Interesting, And you know they are to your point
Speaker 4: now that Republicans even get the sense poking around on
Speaker 4: this that they've finally realized that they have a situation
Speaker 4: on their hands because control of the Senate is so tight.
Speaker 4: Don Osborne is obviously at this point, he's obviously proven
Speaker 4: himself to be a serious candidate, and it's unpredictable. So
Speaker 4: there's going to be so much money pouring into Nebraska.
Speaker 4: McConnell and McConnell's allies. Deb Fisher is super close with
Speaker 4: the Pentagon those types of wings. So there's plenty of
Speaker 4: money going around to support deub Fisher.
Speaker 3: Problem for her is that there's only so much money
Speaker 3: you can spend in Nebraska because you have basically the
Speaker 3: Omaha TV market and people only watch so much TV
Speaker 3: and there's only so many, you know, evening news programs,
Speaker 3: because you want to advertise on sports and news like
Speaker 3: that's that's what that's where you want to put your
Speaker 3: ads because those are the things that people watch live. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and you put your ads on anything else. For the
Speaker 3: most part, people are going to skip skip over the ads.
Speaker 4: And expect it to be that Dan Osborne, the line
Speaker 4: is going to be he's a wolf in sheep's clothing
Speaker 4: because he hasn't really given an answer. I think this
Speaker 4: is fair from a conservative perspective. He hasn't really given
Speaker 4: a clear answer. We asked him this about whether he
Speaker 4: would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans or just not
Speaker 4: caucus because you know, like Bernie Sanders, if you would
Speaker 4: be an independent in the Senate, it's a huge question
Speaker 4: who you caucus with because it will likely give there's
Speaker 4: an indication of which party you're going to side with,
Speaker 4: especially on the important questions so I think that's what
Speaker 4: they're going to hit him on over.
Speaker 3: Sure they are, and they will.
Speaker 4: Just a far left guy who's trying to convince you
Speaker 4: he's maga.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So they're trying to tie him to Bernie, which
Speaker 3: would be uh interesting if he could, if they If
Speaker 3: that works and he still wins, well.
Speaker 4: We'll keep following the s race for sure. Now let's
Speaker 4: move over to McDonald's, which you know this is it's
Speaker 4: sort of a funny story, but it's actually a really
Speaker 4: serious story as well, because as funny as it is
Speaker 4: that Donald Trump just made this trip to McDonald's and
Speaker 4: then a couple of days later there's an e Coli outbreak.
Speaker 4: So the memes have predictably been good, but forty nine
Speaker 4: people in ten states have been sickened by this, and
Speaker 4: an older person in Colorado actually died from this a
Speaker 4: COOLi outbreak, which the CDC. If you go to their website,
Speaker 4: it's right there. It says investigations start date October twenty second,
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four, yesterday, and on their food safety alert
Speaker 4: they say this is a fast moving outbreak investigation. Most
Speaker 4: sick people are reporting eating quarter pounder hamburgers for McDonald's
Speaker 4: and investigators are working quickly to confirm which food ingredient
Speaker 4: is contaminated. So looks like they have some reason we
Speaker 4: can put d one up on the screen. This is
Speaker 4: the New York Times breakdown of the story. Looks like
Speaker 4: they have some good reason to believe that it's specifically
Speaker 4: linked to the quarter pounder. But you know, this is
Speaker 4: hitting people especially hard in the West, so Colorado. New
Speaker 4: York Times lists Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Speaker 4: New Mexico, and Oklahoma. A lot of this, though, has
Speaker 4: been speaking of Nebraska. A lot of this has come
Speaker 4: from Colorado and Nebraska, so really awful situation. McDonald's obviously
Speaker 4: is taking these ingredients out to the best that they can,
Speaker 4: so we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3: The border in that image looked really good though, despite
Speaker 3: the uh no.
Speaker 4: Since Trump went to McDonald's, I have really wanted McDonald's
Speaker 4: because it's just been people have I've been posting so
Speaker 4: much about McDonald's.
Speaker 3: I really feel like we're at a point where McDonald
Speaker 3: should just like give it up with the actual meat,
Speaker 3: Like we're at a place the fake meat tastes the
Speaker 3: same as their their fake meat that has meat in it.
Speaker 3: So so why like why just if you're if you're
Speaker 3: actually now killing people like one person, you know, ten people,
Speaker 3: ten people have been hospitalized, one died so far. It
Speaker 3: takes several days, you know, for this to work its
Speaker 3: way through your system until you wind up in the
Speaker 3: in the hospital or sick. And so there could be
Speaker 3: more cases of this. Hopefully, hopefully this is the end
Speaker 3: of it. But the climate, the climate effects are like
Speaker 3: profound for the amount of meat we consume, and if
Speaker 3: it's and if we can't do it safely, it doesn't
Speaker 3: really even taste that much different. Come on, like those
Speaker 3: chicken like really those chicken nuggets need to have chicken
Speaker 3: in them. Nobody believes that there's really that much chicken
Speaker 3: in those chicken nuggets anyway, So let's just go, let's
Speaker 3: just go all the way things.
Speaker 4: Well, the sad thing is there is chicken and the
Speaker 4: chicken nuggets, and the chickens are not you know, very
Speaker 4: happy chickens.
Speaker 3: Well, those are unhappy chickens.
Speaker 4: Which is I think there's something of a reckoning happening,
Speaker 4: just whether it's maha and maga, like having this unlikely
Speaker 4: marriage where you get like populist left and crunchy populist
Speaker 4: crunchry populist left coming together with the newly crunchy populist right.
Speaker 4: It's not a huge part of the country, but it's
Speaker 4: significant enough that I think there's a real momentum shift
Speaker 4: against some of our older food practice.
Speaker 3: It's also existential in the sense that you're blasting all
Speaker 3: these factory farmed animals full of antibiotics. They can overcome
Speaker 3: the cruel and horrific conditions that they're in, which then
Speaker 3: if you only care about humans, makes you know it's
Speaker 3: not good for you to just be constantly ingesting antibiotics
Speaker 3: that already went through an animal. And it makes more,
Speaker 3: you know, antibiotic resistant bacteria than the fact that we're
Speaker 3: talking about a bacterial and action here.
Speaker 4: It is not a coincidence their stock is plunging. There's
Speaker 4: some reason to believe it looks like from the reporting
Speaker 4: that this was linked to onions because there's much meat.
Speaker 4: Yeah somethe sure, no meat plan it wasn't. Well, I mean,
Speaker 4: we'll see, but this is from NBC. They say McDonald's
Speaker 4: is working with public health officials. According to the CDC,
Speaker 4: the fast food chain has stopped using the slivered onions
Speaker 4: and quarter pound beef patties in several states. McDonald's said
Speaker 4: in a statement Tuesday that its initial findings from the
Speaker 4: investigation indicate that a subset of illness is maybe linked
Speaker 4: to slivered onions used in the quarter pounder and sourced
Speaker 4: by a single supplier that serves three distribution centers, which
Speaker 4: would make sense given the pattern of the spread. Now,
Speaker 4: this is this is something that an expert echoed as well,
Speaker 4: that the onions are kind of notoriously a difficult which
Speaker 4: I didn't realize, but sort of notoriously difficult to control
Speaker 4: the e coali potentially people getting sick outbreaks of So
Speaker 4: just a proto for everybody maybe be worried about your onions.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 4: But Donald Trump actually is sort of infamous for loving
Speaker 4: McDonald's because it's so right. He believes that fast food restaurants,
Speaker 4: and not incorrectly, fast food restaurants are so industrialized that
Speaker 4: their health standards and their cleanliness standards, like they are
Speaker 4: held to the absolute highest standards because anything like this
Speaker 4: is so damaging to their business. They're under microscopes and
Speaker 4: there they just have this Rinsen repeat operation around the
Speaker 4: country that he goes to fast food restaurants because he
Speaker 4: trusted the cleanliness. There was this moment when he's scooping
Speaker 4: the fries the other day into the fried box whatever.
Speaker 4: He turns to the camera and goes amazing, never touches
Speaker 4: the human hands. Yeah, but I mean bad news, bad news.
Speaker 4: That's something well, stay safe thought there everyone, in all seriousness,
Speaker 4: this is you know, can can be incredibly incredibly serious,
Speaker 4: especially to folks out west. So again, stay safe. Let's
Speaker 4: move on to Ryan where you have an exclusive report
Speaker 4: from a reporter on the ground, a drop site news
Speaker 4: reporter on the ground in Havana.
Speaker 3: Last Friday, the entire island of Cuba was plunged into
Speaker 3: darkness as a result of a power outage. You can
Speaker 3: put up E two on the screen. It was the
Speaker 3: most significant power outage in the history of Cuba since
Speaker 3: the revolution. I put up E one here. This is
Speaker 3: just an example of, you know what, the absolutely extraordinary
Speaker 3: event which didn't start to be it didn't start to
Speaker 3: kind of unravel itself to become fixed to get the
Speaker 3: lights back on until yesterday. We're going to talk about,
Speaker 3: you know where why this is happening where this is
Speaker 3: where this is coming from, but over at a drop site.
Speaker 3: A couple of weeks ago, we published this really fascinating
Speaker 3: look at Biden's we'll call it a sanctions regime, but
Speaker 3: so much of what he's doing goes beyond sanctions to
Speaker 3: Cuba and the way that that is impacting the economy there.
Speaker 3: That piece was written by Ed Augustine, who was a
Speaker 3: journalist who was based in Havana, so we asked him
Speaker 3: yesterday to send us a little dispatch about what it
Speaker 3: has been like over the last five days in Havana
Speaker 3: where this is coming from. Here's Ed Augustine.
Speaker 18: I'm reporting from South Havana, where finally, after four days
Speaker 18: of nationwide rolling paraguts, the lights are finally back on.
Speaker 18: I see yesterday afternoon when the lights came back on
Speaker 18: and people were cheering, and you can well imagine why.
Speaker 18: It doesn't take much to imagine how difficult life very
Speaker 18: quickly becomes without electricity, no lights at nights, no air conditioning,
Speaker 18: no fans to keep the mosquitos and tropical diseases that
Speaker 18: they carry away, but also problems with the water. Millions
Speaker 18: of people haven't had running water in Cuba for the
Speaker 18: last five days because the water pumps were electricity. Same
Speaker 18: story for gas cooking. Gas was losing pressure and was
Speaker 18: out in parts of Havana. Having said that, the feeling
Speaker 18: on the ground was a little bit more calm than
Speaker 18: one might have presumed. If this was to have happened
Speaker 18: in my own country, the UK people would have completely
Speaker 18: lost the plot. And people were stressed here and worried,
Speaker 18: but not as much as you might think. Cubans are
Speaker 18: very resilient or preperion. I've WAPs put up, put up
Speaker 18: with far too much. But I was interviewing people yesterday
Speaker 18: and they said, no, it wasn't a big deal. We're
Speaker 18: used to power cuts.
Speaker 4: We've been through this for sixty years.
Speaker 18: This was the biggest one in Havana that's ever happened.
Speaker 18: But people kind of shrug and many people even joke
Speaker 18: about it.
Speaker 4: That's a very Cuban thing.
Speaker 18: Right now, in Havana, over ninety percent of the city
Speaker 18: has electricity, but it's a different story for the rest
Speaker 18: of the country. The national breed is up that is working,
Speaker 18: but there are still millions of people in this country
Speaker 18: of approximately ten.
Speaker 4: Million people that don't have any then have an.
Speaker 18: Electricity right now. The government clearly priority is political reason
Speaker 18: is the capital. They don't want any unrest as they
Speaker 18: would see it. Why is this happening Two main reasons.
Speaker 18: First and foremost US economic alfare Cuba has been sanctioned
Speaker 18: for longer than any other country in recorded history, and
Speaker 18: right now the US Treasury Department sanctions some oil tankers
Speaker 18: that have previously docked in Cuba, and so that dissuades
Speaker 18: other strongly dissuades other oil tankers from selling oil to
Speaker 18: Cuba dealing with Cuba, that dries up costs. So that's
Speaker 18: just one of hundreds of measures the Cuba currently has
Speaker 18: that the US currently has on Cuba, the aim of
Speaker 18: which is to provoke crises and desperation so that people
Speaker 18: rise up and over their government. The other major reason
Speaker 18: economicness management a failed planned vertically planned economic model. There's
Speaker 18: complete consensus or almost complete consensus in Cuba the current economy
Speaker 18: is not working, and the Cuban government, despite having their
Speaker 18: own foot program, have failed to update this system over
Speaker 18: recent decades that today in Havana a sense of relief.
Speaker 18: The crisis isn't over. Still massive problems and tens of
Speaker 18: being able to afford enough petrol, but relief and pens
Speaker 18: a couple days ago.
Speaker 3: So he made a couple of interesting points there, and
Speaker 3: if you go back and read his piece, then we
Speaker 3: can put up E four here. This is his piece
Speaker 3: that he wrote for dropsite. He talks a lot about
Speaker 3: the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, and so the Obama
Speaker 3: in twenty fifteen normalized, basically normalized relations with Cuba and
Speaker 3: took them off this State Sponsor of Terror list. Trump,
Speaker 3: as kind of a last act, kind of a little
Speaker 3: thank you to his friends down in South Florida, put
Speaker 3: them back on the list. And people expected that Biden
Speaker 3: would immediately revert to the Obama administration's policy, say okay,
Speaker 3: like thanks Trump, you lost. We were not doing this anymore,
Speaker 3: like we've moved beyond this. Instead, the Biden administration came
Speaker 3: in and ramped things up and made them even tighter.
Speaker 3: And part of the reason that they were made tighter
Speaker 3: is that the American sanctions regime in general around the
Speaker 3: world has gotten has gotten broadly tougher. So anybody who's
Speaker 3: on this State Sponsor of terrorI list now is facing
Speaker 3: much sharper teeth around the world. And what happens and
Speaker 3: the way that the sanctions work now is that it's
Speaker 3: much more difficult for the media stay to pin it
Speaker 3: directly on Biden. In the past, you would, you know,
Speaker 3: the US would would directly sanction X, and the media
Speaker 3: could say, oh, look, you're sanctioning this, it's causing this harm. Therefore,
Speaker 3: we can talk about whether or not this is a
Speaker 3: policy that ought to be in place. By putting them
Speaker 3: on the state sponsor of Terror list, what it does
Speaker 3: is it makes it basically impossible for them to use
Speaker 3: the banking system and to do business with anybody else
Speaker 3: off of the island. And the US would say, well,
Speaker 3: that's not our problem. You know, we don't actually specifically
Speaker 3: ban this particular provider of grain or oil from providing
Speaker 3: products to Cuba. We don't borrow this particular bank from
Speaker 3: doing this. But the banks say, because this designation is
Speaker 3: so opaque and the penalties are so severe that our
Speaker 3: lawyers say, we should just not do business anywhere near Cuba,
Speaker 3: forget it. It might be it might actually be okay, but
Speaker 3: we're just we're just not going to do it. And
Speaker 3: as ed Ed said, they also are specifically sanctioning some
Speaker 3: particular shipping companies which is then keeping oil out of
Speaker 3: Cuba and driving up energy prices.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Mean, I think the big picture story is that
Speaker 4: sanctions are not I'm not going to say they're categorically
Speaker 4: unjust and effective, but long term, the long term experiment
Speaker 4: shows that in many cases they're not effective. Now, I
Speaker 4: think what the US would say to Cuba is, you know,
Speaker 4: the good faith actors in the US would say to Cuba,
Speaker 4: is not our problem until you reform your human rights situation.
Speaker 4: So I think that's the again, like that's the good
Speaker 4: faith reading.
Speaker 3: But it's also the paper reading, like that we say
Speaker 3: that our policy is that we believe the Cuban regime
Speaker 3: should be ousted and that we are going to put
Speaker 3: on sanctions into place until such time is that we
Speaker 3: drive the Cuban people into such desperation that they overthrow
Speaker 3: the government. So yeah, that is our position. Like you
Speaker 3: don't like this, stop being a communist, Well.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that's true. I think also though, what
Speaker 4: they would say is this is the good faith reading. Obviously,
Speaker 4: it's not the reading of people who are just like
Speaker 4: old Cold warriors who are trying to you know, starve
Speaker 4: Cubans into regime regime change, which is of course still
Speaker 4: very much a mindset and mentality that exists in the Pentagon.
Speaker 4: But also, you know, reform so that you don't rely
Speaker 4: on all of these other countries for your electrical garrid
Speaker 4: have some even China. This is actually when Cuba has
Speaker 4: been looking to China. This was in a Financial Times report.
Speaker 4: A lot of people I saw a lot of people
Speaker 4: like amused by this on Twitter. This is from Financial Times.
Speaker 4: They say China publicly supports Cuba's right to choose its
Speaker 4: own path to economic development quote in line with its
Speaker 4: national conditions, but privately, Chinese officials have long urged the
Speaker 4: Cuban leadership to shift from its vertically planned economy to
Speaker 4: something closer to the Chinese model. According to economists and
Speaker 4: diplomats briefed on the situation, Chinese officials have been perplexed
Speaker 4: and frustrated at the Cuban leadership's unwillingness to decisively implement
Speaker 4: a market oriented reform program despite the glaring dysfunction of
Speaker 4: the status quo that people said, and I agree, I
Speaker 4: think the glaring dysfunction of the status quo is pretty
Speaker 4: well put. So that is all to say, it's not
Speaker 4: I don't think it's primarily the fault of US sanctions.
Speaker 4: I think Cuba working within the parameters that it has,
Speaker 4: I don't support the sanctions entirely, but I think working
Speaker 4: within the parameters that exist, Cuba could do a better
Speaker 4: job servicing its people, keeping his people safe and prosperous
Speaker 4: and healthy. That said, I also don't think there's a
Speaker 4: great case that the sanctions are protecting the people of
Speaker 4: Cuba at this point.
Speaker 3: And and Augustine makes that, you know, he made that
Speaker 3: point at the end there it's talking about how Cuba
Speaker 3: has talked about reforming its economy the Cuban government but
Speaker 3: has but has not done so. The politics of that
Speaker 3: are interesting because the Cuban government is always on its
Speaker 3: back foot because of these sanctions. They have no political
Speaker 3: capital with with the public to do the kinds of
Speaker 3: reforms that would be difficult in the first weeks of them,
Speaker 3: but long term would lead to more economic growth and
Speaker 3: that and that, and as that's not talking about going capitalists,
Speaker 3: that's that's talking about moving more toward a Chinese kind
Speaker 3: of you know, socialism with market you know, Chinese care
Speaker 3: elements or whatever. That that would lead to some disruption
Speaker 3: in the in the meantime, and so you would need
Speaker 3: a little bit more political capital to get that going,
Speaker 3: and they can't do it. The argument is the reason
Speaker 3: is not happening because the US is boot is on
Speaker 3: their neck that they can't even move. My criticism for
Speaker 3: the Chinese would be, so then you step up. You're
Speaker 3: talking a big game about how you want to You
Speaker 3: think they ought to reform. They can't reform because they
Speaker 3: their economy is in complete shamnels because of the United States.
Speaker 3: You know, it's a rounding error for China to help
Speaker 3: them out. But China's just not going to do it,
Speaker 3: which goes against which which cuts against this idea that
Speaker 3: we believe that China has some global hegemonic ambitions, which
Speaker 3: they don't because they're like, that's the US problem, that's
Speaker 3: over by North America. We love, we love that, you know,
Speaker 3: we come from the same like father, but you know
Speaker 3: we're not We're not. They're not going to lift a
Speaker 3: finger to help the Cuban government.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know. I could see not immediately
Speaker 4: agree with that in the media future, but I could
Speaker 4: see long term. This is a great argument I think
Speaker 4: against sanctions because what Cuba has been doing in light
Speaker 4: of the post Trump sanction has been turning to Venezuela,
Speaker 4: turning to part of the reason this is happening is
Speaker 4: because Venezuela doesn't have the capacity to keep helping Cuba
Speaker 4: at the same level that had been in those.
Speaker 3: Sanctions on the as well. Yeah, that as well, and
Speaker 3: oil production is collapsed because as a result, I think
Speaker 3: that's exactly right. If you if you lifted all the
Speaker 3: sanctions on Cuba, just let let Cuba decide for itself
Speaker 3: without the sanctions, what kind of government it wanted to operate,
Speaker 3: what kind of economy wanted to operate. They would open
Speaker 3: up their economy and it would be a more market
Speaker 3: orient and economy that the Cuban regime would try to
Speaker 3: keep like China.
Speaker 4: Well, I was going to say, I mean, when that
Speaker 4: happened under Obama, it was really I mean predictable where
Speaker 4: the money was going. And maybe I mean the experiment
Speaker 4: didn't get to play out in the long term, but
Speaker 4: it was becoming concentrated in the hands of elites.
Speaker 3: I mean, not by any not by any like. If
Speaker 3: you can't compare them to the way that we concentrate
Speaker 3: money in the hands of the elites, then it's not
Speaker 3: even compare, it's not even close.
Speaker 4: It's an interesting I mean, I think it's a pretty
Speaker 4: interesting question what would happen in the long term because.
Speaker 3: There are still yeah, exactly, and imagine that. Imagine letting
Speaker 3: Cuba just decide for itself.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, instead of turning them into the arms of people,
Speaker 4: for example, who want to threaten semiconductor manft manufacturing in
Speaker 4: Taiwan that we depend on. Potentially, I'm not saying they're
Speaker 4: actually going to do it, but that's obviously something that's
Speaker 4: being talked about in Beijing. So no, I mean, China
Speaker 4: may be right about the problems with the Cubans system,
Speaker 4: but it's not an argument for China to colonize the
Speaker 4: Cuban system either, in the same way it's not an
Speaker 4: argument for us to do it. But it feels anytime
Speaker 4: we have this bickering over Cuba, I mean you just
Speaker 4: again go back to we are not even one hundred
Speaker 4: years into the nuclear experiment. And the reason that Cuba
Speaker 4: is such a flashpoint here is because China could be
Speaker 4: Soviet ask and putting weapons in Cuba, which makes it
Speaker 4: a huge that to the.
Speaker 3: United States, they're just not that right.
Speaker 4: So the us, right, so that because of the possibility,
Speaker 4: you're constantly, constantly at loggerheads. It's actually ultimately an argument
Speaker 4: against nuclear weapons. But that's a different.
Speaker 3: Story if people in a couple other details, Like one
Speaker 3: of the things we've done, just as just completely malicious
Speaker 3: and vindictive, is that we put into place a policy
Speaker 3: that says, if you are European, if you have a
Speaker 3: if you can come to the United States without having
Speaker 3: to get a visa, which is Europeans, and like there's
Speaker 3: like thirty seven countries or so where you can just
Speaker 3: come to the United States and vacation here France or whatever.
Speaker 3: If you go to Cuba, then you now have to
Speaker 3: get a waiver to come to the United States for
Speaker 3: like the next ten years. Why like why, like, there's
Speaker 3: no reason for us to do that other than being vindicted.
Speaker 3: What are we afraid they're going to fly to Cuba
Speaker 3: and get like cigars and then fly them back to
Speaker 3: France and then fly them over here and smoke them
Speaker 3: like on a balcony somewhere. Like. So what that did
Speaker 3: is it completely just dried up European tourism, which was
Speaker 3: one of the only things they had left. We also
Speaker 3: allowed Cuban national Cuban Americans here in the United States
Speaker 3: to sue like cruise lines saying that there that actually
Speaker 3: that ought to be our property, and so cruise ships
Speaker 3: stopped docking in Havana, so that disappeared. Like it's just
Speaker 3: the systematic anything that Cuba had working for it. We
Speaker 3: just went after and then we're like, oh, look see
Speaker 3: we told you communism doesn't work well. And then all
Speaker 3: the Cubans are flooding the southern border like yes, absolutely,
Speaker 3: hundreds of thousands more than the Mario boat lift, Like yeah, absolute,
Speaker 3: Like anyone else you can leave Cuba is leaving.
Speaker 4: Cuba and by way of South America, Like it's not
Speaker 4: like Marrio boat lift, Like actually.
Speaker 3: Right, they're flying in Nicaragua and then they're taking a
Speaker 3: train up.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Absolutely. Speaking of humanitarian crises, Ryan, you have a
Speaker 4: wonderful new report up at drop Site. Wonderful for how
Speaker 4: vivid and detailed it is, especially compared to so many
Speaker 4: reports that we see is mainstream press out of Gaza
Speaker 4: about the destruction of Gaza.
Speaker 3: Essentially over at drop Site News, we've published a unique
Speaker 3: new piece of investigative journalism by reporters units to Rawi
Speaker 3: and Sammy Vanderlib. They were able to obtain reams of
Speaker 3: social media posts from soldiers and officers inside a single
Speaker 3: combat engineering battalion known as Battalion seven forty nine. The
Speaker 3: unit has been operating in Gaza on and off since
Speaker 3: shortly after October seventh, and has left an unusually large
Speaker 3: amount of destruction in its wake. What makes this reporting
Speaker 3: unique is that by relying on the battalion's own social
Speaker 3: media posts, we can trace their path through Gaza, identifying
Speaker 3: specific acts and linking them to specific actors by name.
Speaker 3: At one point, the battalion even put together a montage
Speaker 3: of their destruction and began it with a little homage
Speaker 3: to Disney. Now we can play this here, but we're
Speaker 3: not actually going to play the clip because we're afraid
Speaker 3: we'll get a copyright takedown, which would be just extraordinarily
Speaker 3: ironic and a weird testimony to what you're able to
Speaker 3: do on the Internet. Let me just say that doing
Speaker 3: this kind of investigative work is extremely resource intensive, and
Speaker 3: if you can help by becoming a drop site subscriber,
Speaker 3: either free or paid, and support Breaking Points while you're
Speaker 3: at it, Go to breakingpoints dot com. For that go
Speaker 3: to drop sitenews dot com Counterpoint subscribers can get a
Speaker 3: discount twenty percent off at drop site news dot com
Speaker 3: slash counterpoints now look. In mainstream Western media, the coverage
Speaker 3: of Israel's year of scorch shart destruction often touches on
Speaker 3: the victims and events happening in Gaza. In the passive voice,
Speaker 3: death and destruction befall Palestinians the way a city suffers
Speaker 3: from a hurricane or an earthquake, though in those cases,
Speaker 3: actually the media has little difficulty identifying the natural disaster
Speaker 3: as the cause of the destruction. When it comes to Gaza,
Speaker 3: it's even worse. Buildings mysteriously explode and people just die
Speaker 3: for no obvious reason. Rarely do we see the Israeli
Speaker 3: military identified as having carried out the act, and never
Speaker 3: do we see individual members of the military named and
Speaker 3: identify their actions described in detail, broken down by unit
Speaker 3: and task. In fact, doing so in Israel is illegal.
Speaker 3: The stated rationale for that censorship is operational security, but
Speaker 3: according to a report from Israel's Channel thirteen, the real
Speaker 3: aim is to dodge accountability for war crimes. If that's true,
Speaker 3: the soldiers themselves work against this cover up on a
Speaker 3: daily basis, posting endless photos, videos and montages from the
Speaker 3: homes and neighborhoods of Gaza. They are raising that's where
Speaker 3: this investigation begins. Unison Samy have managed to find an
Speaker 3: archive all the Instagram stories and daily posts shared by
Speaker 3: the soldiers of Battalion seven forty nine. They've mapped out
Speaker 3: the structure of the unit and identified the individual soldiers
Speaker 3: and officers involved, along with their various roles in operations.
Speaker 3: They have tracked the activities of each company in the battalion,
Speaker 3: including what they were doing, when and where as the
Speaker 3: force shred its way through Gaza. The mission is nothing
Speaker 3: less than a systematic, at a concerted and deliberate effort
Speaker 3: to erase the intellectual, cultural and social future of the
Speaker 3: Palestinian people. Quote our job is to flatten Gaza, the
Speaker 3: soldiers of the official D nine company of the Battalion
Speaker 3: wrote on their Instagram page. They added, accurately, quote no
Speaker 3: one will stop us. You likely heard about some of
Speaker 3: the atrocities described in this article in real time, and
Speaker 3: if you follow our work here on the Breaking Points channel,
Speaker 3: learn of the impact on the Palestinian population. But now
Speaker 3: you can see it from the perspective of those carrying
Speaker 3: out and reveling in them. The investigation is a thorough
Speaker 3: accounting of the acts committed by the seven to forty
Speaker 3: nine Battalion, complete with the evidence they post themselves. These
Speaker 3: are not just isolated events, but represent a pattern that
Speaker 3: runs through the very heart of the Israeli military, a
Speaker 3: sadistic attitude toward the civilians of Gaza, whose futures they
Speaker 3: have been tasked with blowing up or flattening. Now, if
Speaker 3: statistics sounds harsh, go read through the report and ask
Speaker 3: yourself if it's not, in the end too soft of
Speaker 3: a description. From the beginning of the Israeli invasion of Gaza,
Speaker 3: you may recall Benjamin Netyah, who's ominous invocation of the
Speaker 3: biblical Amalekites. When Netyaho made that remark, the notion was
Speaker 3: already in the air. On October ninth, Lieutenant Colonel Addi Bacore,
Speaker 3: deputy commander of Israel's seven forty nine Combat Engineering Battalion,
Speaker 3: posted on his personal Instagram account quote, now go attack
Speaker 3: the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them.
Speaker 3: Do not spare them, and put to death men and women, children,
Speaker 3: in infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys unquotes. Now,
Speaker 3: many of the unit's members liked the post and proceeded
Speaker 3: to put it into practice. Seven forty nine Battalion was
Speaker 3: among the first to enter the Strip through the net
Speaker 3: Seriem Corridor, the four mile long road separating Gaza City
Speaker 3: and darry Al Bala that Israel occupied early in the
Speaker 3: war in order in order to divide the north and
Speaker 3: south of Gaza. After helping them cement control of South
Speaker 3: Gaza City, including the nets Corder, the battalion later advanced
Speaker 3: into areas like Shujaya in Gaza City, the Bourage refugee
Speaker 3: camp in central Gaza, and even Rafa. Currently seven forty
Speaker 3: nine Battalion is operating in North Gaza and Jabaaliyah, where
Speaker 3: we're even following hamas Let or Yaya Sinwar's killing in
Speaker 3: southern Gaza, Israel's campaign has intensified to the point of
Speaker 3: executions and depopulation there. Seven forty nine Battalion is seemingly
Speaker 3: racing to destroy as many buildings as possible. As one
Speaker 3: soldier put it, quote, we will leave them nothing unquote.
Speaker 3: The images in this investigation come primarily from the battalion's
Speaker 3: private social media group, which Dropsite News, gained access to
Speaker 3: as well as the profiles and accounts of dozens of
Speaker 3: soldiers from various companies within the battalion. By stitching together
Speaker 3: the information shared within the group, we were able to
Speaker 3: clearly map out the unit's organizational structure, identify over one
Speaker 3: hundred of its members, and document their activities in the
Speaker 3: Gaza trip in detail now. In December twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: Company A of the seventh forty nine Battalion was tasked
Speaker 3: with rigging up the South Gaza City campus of al
Speaker 3: Azar University with explosives and detonating them, reducing Gaza's second
Speaker 3: largest university to rubble. First Master Sergeant David Zoldan, the
Speaker 3: operational officer of Company A of Israel seven forty nine Battalion,
Speaker 3: wrote in an Instagram post on December twentieth, quote, on Shabbat,
Speaker 3: we loaded the mines and I signed off on the
Speaker 3: shipment with a modification due to the sanctity of Shabbat.
Speaker 3: A few days later, we assembled them and booby trapped
Speaker 3: one of Gaza's symbols of the future, al Azar University,
Speaker 3: in the northern part of the Strip, and blew it
Speaker 3: up unquote. Zoldan, a reservist who normally works as a
Speaker 3: journalist at ICE, a local Israeli news outlet, attached several
Speaker 3: photos and videos of the entire operation quote from the
Speaker 3: unloading stage to the massive explosion. Quote. In one of
Speaker 3: the videos, he cheers as the three buildings of the
Speaker 3: university campus are prepared to be blown up. Quote this
Speaker 3: is the explosion before redemption. December twenty twenty three, he says,
Speaker 3: as the university has blown up, Zoldan tells his fellow soldiers,
Speaker 3: quote Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Did you see you can
Speaker 3: hear it here?
Speaker 12: Let it?
Speaker 3: Soldan did not provide a military justification for the explosion.
Speaker 3: In the Israeli military have not reported to have found
Speaker 3: anything in the university campus. Seven forty nine Battalion, he
Speaker 3: wrote after the explosion, quote is working day and night
Speaker 3: and performing holy work in the Gaza strip unquote. Other
Speaker 3: soldiers from the battalion made no effort to conceal their intentions,
Speaker 3: gleefully mocking the destruction of civilian and educational property. Maya
Speaker 3: Ra Dazowitz, another soldier in the seven forty nine battalion,
Speaker 3: was among them. She filmed the explosion of Azar University,
Speaker 3: capturing it quote goodbye to higher education in Gaza with
Speaker 3: an emoji of hands in the form of a heart
Speaker 3: bob go ah del Fie. She's one of twenty seven
Speaker 3: soldiers that we have identified as being deployed to blow
Speaker 3: up a Lazar University, including Roy Wicks, who fights with
Speaker 3: an American flag patch on his sleeve and who helped
Speaker 3: plant explosives that led to the destruction of the institution.
Speaker 3: From there, drop site tracked the unit through the rest
Speaker 3: of its campaign through Gaza. Many of the social media
Speaker 3: accounts we use to obtain footage have since been deleted,
Speaker 3: but you can read the full investigation from Eunice and
Speaker 3: Sammy and see the rest of the videos over at
Speaker 3: dropsideews dot com now. In response to our request for comment,
Speaker 3: the IDF said this in response to the barbaric attacks
Speaker 3: by Hamas, the IDF is working to dismantle the military
Speaker 3: administrative capabilities of Hamas in complete contrast to the deliberate
Speaker 3: attacks by Hamas on Israeli men, women and children. The
Speaker 3: IDF operates according to international law and takes possible precautions
Speaker 3: to reduce harm to civilians. The IDF acts to address
Speaker 3: exceptional incidents that deviate from the orders and expected values
Speaker 3: of IDF soldiers. The IDF examines events of this kind,
Speaker 3: as well as reports of videos posted on social media,
Speaker 3: and handles them with command and disciplinary measures. In cases
Speaker 3: involving a suspicion of a criminal offense arises that justifies
Speaker 3: opening investigation, and investigation is opened by the Criminal Investigation Division.
Speaker 3: Upon its conclusion, the findings are transferred to the Military
Speaker 3: Advocate General for review. It should be clarified that in
Speaker 3: some of the examined cases it was concluded that the
Speaker 3: expression of or behavior of the soldiers in the video
Speaker 3: was inappropriate and it was handled accordingly. Now Emily, they don't.
Speaker 3: They didn't tell us specifically which of the incidents were
Speaker 3: handled in that accordingly fashion. But I think what's important
Speaker 3: to understand is that the key when it comes because
Speaker 3: I'm sure a lot of people are thinking, are where's
Speaker 3: the International Criminal Court and where's the International Court of Justice?
Speaker 3: You know, if if we were a nonprofit news organization
Speaker 3: with the help of some freelance reporters can put together this,
Speaker 3: certainly the ICC and ICJ can do it as well.
Speaker 3: So what's going on here, and you see in that
Speaker 3: response from the IDF part of the part of the explanation.
Speaker 3: As long as there is a legal process in a state,
Speaker 3: in a government to provide accountability to war criminals, then
Speaker 3: the ICC and ICJ don't have jurisdiction like that's that's
Speaker 3: that's the setup. So the deal basically is, Okay, we're
Speaker 3: going to have these international courts, but if you have
Speaker 3: a sufficient domestic court that prosecutes people, then we're going
Speaker 3: to stay out. We're going to allow that to unfold.
Speaker 3: And so while Israel was going through that debate over
Speaker 3: the prison guards who were accused and then later charged
Speaker 3: of raping palatiny and detainees, that the internal debate was
Speaker 3: from defenders of the criminal charges. They said, look, we
Speaker 3: have to charge them. If we don't charge them, then
Speaker 3: the ICC and the ICJ come in. We have to
Speaker 3: have a process, and their defenders were saying, screw it,
Speaker 3: we'll take them on.
Speaker 4: That's why I think this case study is sort of
Speaker 4: a really sad but interesting window into the posts and
Speaker 4: the invocation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is such a good
Speaker 4: example of how this is a case study on the
Speaker 4: incredible failures of global liberalism or post war global liberalism,
Speaker 4: where I agree with one thing you said in here
Speaker 4: where you described this as a pattern. I mean, clearly,
Speaker 4: this is not fringe, This is not you know, nut picking.
Speaker 4: This is an obvious, established pattern. And it's also not
Speaker 4: surprising that it's a pattern, because this is how people
Speaker 4: react when their husbands and wives and brothers and sons
Speaker 4: and family members are killed and their countrymen are brutally slaughtered.
Speaker 4: This is of course how people react. It doesn't make
Speaker 4: it right. And what happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki is
Speaker 4: that we implemented a liberal world order to help not
Speaker 4: allow retribution like this to happen on the scale on
Speaker 4: scale in international relations. And you citing Old Testament versus
Speaker 4: about the Amalekites and all of that. I mean, this
Speaker 4: is just the way we decided not to do war
Speaker 4: after World War two. And Israel says that it holds
Speaker 4: the holds itself to the highest standards, and it clearly
Speaker 4: holds itself to higher standards than places like I mean,
Speaker 4: if from Hamas you see a lot of this happening
Speaker 4: out in the open, you say, you hear a lot
Speaker 4: of this conversation having on though at least Israel purports
Speaker 4: to have some type of shame about it, but in
Speaker 4: a way that makes it worse because they're the ones
Speaker 4: enforcing or being or aren't part of the liberal international order.
Speaker 3: And what this shows is that there really is no
Speaker 3: shame on the ground among the officers and the soldiers
Speaker 3: that we from outside this can have these debates or
Speaker 3: is this a genocide? Is it not a genocide? The
Speaker 3: clear intent of the soldiers and the officers carrying out
Speaker 3: is genocidal like towards the cultural, social, and political institutions
Speaker 3: of the palatading people. Like they're not talking about the
Speaker 3: militarily eradicating them. They're talking about just rooting them out,
Speaker 3: root and branch, a complete and total ethnic cleansing. They're
Speaker 3: very clear about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah so, I mean, it's in a sense, it's one
Speaker 4: of those really difficult questions of how people who wield
Speaker 4: standards of internet law, like the US, you know, we'll
Speaker 4: wield these standards of international law on one way towards
Speaker 4: Putin and in another way towards Israel, are struggling to
Speaker 4: meet their own standards and in some cases don't even
Speaker 4: care to meet their own standards.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So, who do we have on the Friday Show.
Speaker 4: We have Michael Knowles on the Friday Show, which is
Speaker 4: going to be very interesting. We had Matt Walsh a
Speaker 4: couple of weeks ago, so we'll do a couple of
Speaker 4: Daily Wire guys ahead of the election. But one thing
Speaker 4: I'll say about them is they're willing to chop it up.
Speaker 4: So I imagine we're going to chop it up with
Speaker 4: Michael because I can't two people with like further differences
Speaker 4: or greater differences than you get forward to it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it'll be fun. We have a weekend segment right that's
Speaker 4: going to post as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, over Counterpoints, we're rolling out The Palestine Laboratory as
Speaker 3: a four part podcast series by Anthony Lowenstein based on
Speaker 3: his book by the same name. This is updated post
Speaker 3: October seventh. We'll have a segment we'll post on the
Speaker 3: weekend in an interview with Lowenstein about this about this casts,
Speaker 3: and basically The Palestine Laboratory is about how the Israeli
Speaker 3: military cyber industrial complex uses the Palestinian people and the
Speaker 3: occupied territories as ways to experiment with new weapons and
Speaker 3: then markets its products as having been experimented on human beings.
Speaker 3: And therefore more effective than the competitors.
Speaker 4: Well I look forward to that, So everyone stay tuned
Speaker 4: Breakingpoints dot com from the full premium version of the
Speaker 4: show early with no ads. Make sure to subscribe there
Speaker 4: to support us as we head towards election day. But
Speaker 4: thanks everyone for tuning in.
Speaker 3: See you later, See you Friday.